Article 17 of the Indian Constitution abolishes untouchability and prohibits its practice in any form, making it a criminal offense. Alongside, Article 18 eliminates titles of nobility, prohibiting the government from granting titles except for military or academic honors. These articles aim to promote equality and social justice, with legal provisions to protect citizens from caste-based discrimination and unauthorized titles.

Article 17

Article 17 eliminates the practice of ‘untouchability’ and prohibits it in all forms. Any enforcement of disabilities resulting from untouchability will be treated as a criminal offense subject to legal penalties.  

• Definition: It should be noted that, though Article 17 abolishes untouchability, the term “Untouchability” hasn’t been defined anywhere in the Constitution.  
• Court ruling: The Mysore High Court gave its interpretation that the subject matter of Article 17 is not untouchable in its literal or grammatical sense but the ‘practice as it had developed historically in the country’.  It addresses the social disadvantages imposed on specific groups due to their birth into particular castes. Hence, it does not cover social boycotts of a few individuals or their exclusion from religious services, etc. 
• Nature of the article: It should be noted that Article 17 is absolute in nature i.e. there are no exceptions given in this article. In other words, practicing untouchability in any manner is illegal. Therefore, it cannot be violated under any circumstances.
• Parliamentary law: Article 35 in conjunction with Article 17 grants Parliament the power to create laws that impose penalties for practicing untouchability. Consequently, Parliament enacted the Untouchability (Offences) Act, of 1955. In 1976, this law was strengthened and renamed ‘The Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955’. It describes ‘Civil Right’ as ‘any right that a person obtains due to the abolition of untouchability by Article 17 of the Constitution’. 

Supreme Court Judgement

• People’s Union for Democratic Rights vs Union of India, 1982: In this case, the Supreme court established that this article gives security not only against the state but also against private individuals. It is the legal obligation of the government to take essential actions to avert the infringement of these rights.

Abolition of Titles 

This Article is the legal responsibility of the government to take necessary actions to prevent the infringement of these rights. 

• This article eliminates titles and introduces four related provisions: It forbids the government from granting any title (with the exception of military or academic honors) to anyone, regardless of whether they are a citizen or a foreign national.
• It prohibits an Indian citizen from receiving any title from a foreign government. 
• A foreigner who holds any position of profit or trust under the government cannot accept any title from a foreign nation without the president’s permission. 
• No citizen or foreign person in a position of profit or trust under the government is allowed to accept any gift, emolument, or position from a foreign government without the consent of the president. 
• Nevertheless, the Supreme Court has affirmed the constitutional legitimacy of the National Awards—Bharat Ratna, Padma Vibhushan, Padma Bhushan, and Padma Shri. It stated that these awards do not constitute ‘titles’ as defined in Article 18, which only prohibits hereditary titles of nobility. Therefore, they do not violate Article 18, since the principle of equality does not require that merit goes unacknowledged. However, it also ruled that these awards should not be used as prefixes or suffixes in the names of recipients